Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - StPaulieGirl

#31
http://www.ny1.com/ny/TopStories/SubTopic/index.html?topicintid=1&subtopicintid=1&contentintid=35119

Intersection To Be Named For Joey Ramone

NOVEMBER 28TH, 2003

The corner of the Bowery and Second Street will soon be called "Joey Ramone Way."

The city will honor the late front man of the seminal punk band The Ramones by unveiling a street sign this Sunday at 1 p.m. The block is home to the CBGB nightclub where the band rose to fame.

The club will host a reception after the dedication.

The Ramones are considered by many to be the original punk band, and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last year.

Joey Ramone died of cancer in April 2001.
#32
The link is bad, but as far as I know this is the complete text.  

It's a good thing that Angus the wondercat is lazy as hell.  Mice could walk over him for all he cares....

Is this going to turn into a tax against cats?



FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Browse | Search | Topics | Post Article | My Comments ]

Click to scroll to commentary.

Charlie Tuna Award--California Legislature Licenses Mouse-trapping
SFGate ^ | 11-23-2003 | Tom Stinestra


Posted on 11/28/2003 3:32 PM PST by wildbill


Charlie Tuna Award

My selection for this year's Charlie Tuna Award goes to the Animal Protection Institute (API) of Sacramento. This is no easy feat considering some of the stunts pulled off by former Fish and Game Director Robert Hight.

The API pushed SB 1645 as law, which requires that anybody taking furbearing mammals or non-game animals must purchase a trapping license, available only by paying a fee ($78.50) and passing a fairly complex test. Now get this: Fish and Game Code 4005 defines non-game animals as including mice, rats, gophers and moles.

So now you need a trapping license to set out mousetraps?

Terry Knight of the Lake County Fish and Wildlife Committee asked Scott Paulsen, DFG chief of law enforcement, that question at a committee meeting Thursday night.

"We're not enforcing this for personal use," said Paulson, who then added that, because of the force of law, the statute must be enforced for commercial use.

That means if you hire a neighbor to set mousetraps at your house, or perhaps hire your gardener or a pest control service, that they must have a trapping permit -- or face being arrested.

The DFG did not support the bill, but the Animal Protection Institute pushed it through anyway, according to Knight.

"I can see the headlines now, 'Mice trappers face jail term,' " Knight said. "But if you get the permit, the real problem you're facing is that it takes too many mice to make a fur coat."

The Charlie Tuna Award is a fish hook made out of fool's gold.


#33
If anyone is in dire need of a laugh, you have to check out this website!

http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html



Weight Watchers recipe cards from 1974

I found them while helping my parents clean out their basement a few years ago. They were neatly arranged in their own plastic file box. Plenty of the dishes seemed normal enough, but as I flipped through them, some of the recipes began to alarm me. And then I found the card for the "Rosy Perfection Salad."

I fell over. Like I Iaughed so hard I started coughing and I fell back on the floor and I waved the card at my mom, who just rolled her eyes. "Can I please have these? Please?" I begged. "What do you want them for?" she asked. "To cook?" "No," I said. She let me have them. I think they might have been my grandma's, but she never copped to actually buying them. Nobody else did, either.

These cards mystify me. None of them have calorie or nutrition information of any kind, and in some instances it's hard to tell what's dietetic about the recipes at all, except that they're unspeakably grim. And yet also, completely insane. They appear to be from a much kookier era of Weight Watchers. There's a certain serve-it-at- your-next-key-party freakiness to a lot of these dishes.

Dehydrated onion flakes are in almost everything here. Apparently Weight Watchers dieticians depended heavily on dried onion flakes, and pimientos, too.

They also had a prop department that was clearly out of control. Oh, you'll see.

As far as I know, I was never served any of these dishes as a child. I probably would have repressed the memory, anyway.

#34
I'm on a lot of ping lists over on Freerepublic.   We're all doomed.
Loookie what I got!

http://www.christianlesbians.com/

Oh yes, they're everywhere!  Now we get to see wonderful things, like Anita and Dana's wedding album.

This site is a hoot.  No I'm definitely not gay, and guys- those ladies aren't lipstick lesbians(the honeymoon pics are disturbing)....D'ya think they'll try and breed????
#35
Nasty alert )(


http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm17299_20031125.htm

Woman charged for falsely accusing Lions receiver of rape

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

BY BEN SCHMITT
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER


A 22-year-old Detroit woman was charged Tuesday with falsely accusing Detroit Lions wide receiver Scotty Anderson of raping her.

Wayne County Prosecutor Michael Duggan announced the four-year felony charge at a press conference Tuesday morning. Duggan said the charges stem from a Sept. 17 incident at Anderson's Dearborn apartment that spilled over into the early morning hours of Sept. 18.

The accusing woman, Nicole Milburn, who is a dancer at a Detroit gentleman's club, went to Anderson's apartment with two friends on Sept. 17 for a night of drinking, Duggan said.

At some point, Anderson had consensual sex with Milburn's friend, but never with Milburn, Duggan said.

At 11 p.m. that night, Anderson confronted the women about $700 in cash missing from his bedroom. At that point, one of the other women told Anderson that Milburn picked up his discarded condoms from his bedroom and allegedly put the contents inside of her, Duggan said.

The reason, according to Duggan: ``Apparently, either to hopefully cause herself to be pregnant and have a child support claim, or potentially, as it turned out, possibly to support a rape claim.''

Anderson and his 18-year-old cousin found three used condoms in Milburn's back pocket, Duggan said. They also found some of the stolen money stuffed into her hair, he said.

``They demanded the money back, at which point Ms. Milburn ran out into the hallway of the building, screaming rape,'' Duggan said.

Neighbors called 911 and Dearborn police responded. Police also found some of the stolen money hidden in Milburn's car, Duggan said.

``This is disturbing from so many perspectives,'' Duggan said. ``We are seeing more and more people's reputations being tarnished with false felony reports. This also hurts every woman who is raped and goes through that trauma because it causes other women to pause and wonder whether they're going to be believed when they see somebody who is caught being a liar.''

Duggan said the two other women who accompanied Milburn confirmed that she told them about her alleged ruse with the condoms.

Milburn is expected to turn herself in and be arraigned this week, Duggan said.

Anderson, a 3-year veteran of the Lions, is currently on injured reserve with an ankle injury.


Contact BEN SCHMITT at 313-222-6597 or [email protected].

Disturbing?  Yep.  Many women don't report real rapes because of these ho's.  Even more disturbing....what if that skank managed to get pregnant?  
#36
General Issues / More on Terri Schiavo
Nov 21, 2003, 09:48:14 PM
Sorry folks...it's all freerepublic all the time...

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGACEZ8LAND.html

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) - Gov. Jeb Bush asked an appeals court Friday to disqualify a judge in the constitutional battle over a law that allowed doctors to reinsert a brain-damaged woman's feeding tube.
The appeal came a day after Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird refused to step aside as requested by Bush.

The governor wants Baird off the case after he said at a hearing last week that the hastily passed law intruded on Terri Schiavo's privacy rights and was "presumptively unconstitutional." Schiavo's husband Michael has offered those arguments and is suing Bush to challenge the law.

Baird "cannot continue to preside over this matter without being swayed by his own personal biases and prejudices in this case," Bush said in an affidavit filed with the appeal.

State courts have repeatedly affirmed Michael Schiavo's right as his wife's legal guardian to have the tube removed. Terri Schiavo went without water and nutrition for six days before the Legislature and Bush stepped in Oct. 21 to have the tube reinserted.

Baird said he didn't contest the facts in Bush's motion to disqualify him, but it didn't reach the legal threshold required to recuse himself.

Meanwhile, another judge also refused Friday to disqualify himself in a separate battle over Terri Schiavo's guardianship.

Circuit Judge George Greer denied the request by Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are trying to get Michael Schiavo removed as their daughter's guardian.

Greer has presided over the case the longest, and the Schindlers have tried three previous times to get him off the case. They charge he favors their son-in-law.

Michael Schiavo has been battling his in-laws in court for years to remove his wife's feeding tube, saying she would not to be kept alive artificially. She suffered severe brain damage after collapsing in 1990.

Doctors and Greer have ruled she has been in a persistent vegetative state since then, but her parents believe she is aware of her surroundings and could be rehabilitated.

AP-ES-11-21-03 1348EST

#37
Visitation Issues / Ho Ho Ho. More Drama For Xmas
Dec 14, 2004, 10:08:39 AM
Once again, Mr. Wonderful has deliberately ignored the court ordered visitation schedule for Christmas vacation.  This year, I am putting my foot down.  Now I'm just waiting for the reprisals :(

His unsigned note to me, with the blank part of the paper ripped off (this is exactly how he typed it):

XXXX,
I'LL Be Picking Up Xxx & Xxxxxx On Saturday Dec 18th, We Will be Taking the Kids to Bass Lake For 3 Days.I'll Bring Them Back Home Christmas Day.

You see, last year he scheduled a trip for his wife and himself during his scheduled visitation which was from end of school until Christmas afternoon.  When I initially reminded him of the court ordered schedule, he whined that he had already made the reservations....in October!  The only reason he was able to have his way was because the youngest one wanted to spend time with him. IIRC, they were back home on the 28th, certainly not when they were supposed to be home.  Good thing I was home, and not out of town.

By the time I was finished typing and editing my reply (sent certified with return receipt), I needed an ice scraper for the monitor:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxxx,
This is to inform you that I have received the note you sent yesterday, via Xxxxxx.  Your visitation with the children this Christmas starts on the afternoon of Christmas Day, and concludes on New Years Day.  In your note you stated that you would pick up the children on December 18, 2004, and return them Christmas Day.  This is in violation of the court order, as was your presumptuous request to change visitation, Christmas 2003.  

The rescheduling of the children's time with you last Christmas was an arbitrary demand on your part. Because your daughter wanted to spend time with you, I agreed to allow the change.  In the future, may I suggest that you consult the court ordered visitation schedule in advance, before making reservations.  If you are experiencing a problem understanding the court order, please consult an attorney to assist you.

Considering the circumstances, the last several years in particular, I have been extremely cooperative regarding your access to the children on all levels.  However, we also make plans, and those plans are made based on the court order.  Because of this, please bring the children back New Years Day, and not beforehand like last year.

Have a blessed Christmas,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, maybe I shouldn't have used $20 dollar words like presumptuous or arbitrary.  He has managed to find a way to make Christmas hell for the last 26 years.  I had hoped that would end along with the marriage.  Nope, just gave him even better ways of expressing himself....




#38
I don't have a link, even though another poster and I asked for one, but I thought this might be worth sharing.  If there any Atheists here, please disregard this post ;)


The Truth About Men & Church

Robbie Low on the Importance of Fathers to Churchgoing

The Critical Factor

In 1994 the Swiss carried out an extra survey that the researchers for our masters in Europe (I write from England) were happy to record. The question was asked to determine whether a person's religion carried through to the next generation, and if so, why, or if not, why not. The result is dynamite. There is one critical factor. It is overwhelming, and it is this: It is the religious practice of the father of the family that, above all, determines the future attendance at or absence from church of the children.

If both father and mother attend regularly, 33 percent of their children will end up as regular churchgoers, and 41 percent will end up attending irregularly. Only a quarter of their children will end up not practicing at all. If the father is irregular and mother regular, only 3 percent of the children will subsequently become regulars themselves, while a further 59 percent will become irregulars. Thirty-eight percent will be lost.

If the father is non-practicing and mother regular, only 2 percent of children will become regular worshippers, and 37 percent will attend irregularly. Over 60 percent of their children will be lost completely to the church.

Let us look at the figures the other way round. What happens if the father is regular but the mother irregular or non-practicing? Extraordinarily, the percentage of children becoming regular goes up from 33 percent to 38 percent with the irregular mother and to 44 percent with the non-practicing, as if loyalty to father's commitment grows in proportion to mother's laxity, indifference, or hostility.

Before mothers despair, there is some consolation for faithful moms. Where the mother is less regular than the father but attends occasionally, her presence ensures that only a quarter of her children will never attend at all.

Even when the father is an irregular attender there are some extraordinary effects. An irregular father and a non-practicing mother will yield 25 percent of their children as regular attenders in their future life and a further 23 percent as irregulars. This is twelve times the yield where the roles are reversed.

Where neither parent practices, to nobody's very great surprise, only 4 percent of children will become regular attenders and 15 percent irregulars. Eighty percent will be lost to the faith.

While mother's regularity, on its own, has scarcely any long-term effect on children's regularity (except the marginally negative one it has in some circumstances), it does help prevent children from drifting away entirely. Faithful mothers produce irregular attenders. Non-practicing mothers change the irregulars into non-attenders. But mothers have even their beneficial influence only in complementarity with the practice of the father.

Father's Influence

In short, if a father does not go to church, no matter how faithful his wife's devotions, only one child in 50 will become a regular worshipper. If a father does go regularly, regardless of the practice of the mother, between two-thirds and three-quarters of their children will become churchgoers (regular and irregular). If a father goes but irregularly to church, regardless of his wife's devotion, between a half and two-thirds of their offspring will find themselves coming to church regularly or occasionally.

A non-practicing mother with a regular father will see a minimum of two-thirds of her children ending up at church. In contrast, a non-practicing father with a regular mother will see two-thirds of his children never darken the church door. If his wife is similarly negligent that figure rises to 80 percent!

The results are shocking, but they should not be surprising. They are about as politically incorrect as it is possible to be; but they simply confirm what psychologists, criminologists, educationalists, and traditional Christians know. You cannot buck the biology of the created order. Father's influence, from the determination of a child's sex by the implantation of his seed to the funerary rites surrounding his passing, is out of all proportion to his allotted, and severely diminished role, in Western liberal society.

A mother's role will always remain primary in terms of intimacy, care, and nurture. (The toughest man may well sport a tattoo dedicated to the love of his mother, without the slightest embarrassment or sentimentality). No father can replace that relationship. But it is equally true that when a child begins to move into that period of differentiation from home and engagement with the world "out there," he (and she) looks increasingly to the father for his role model. Where the father is indifferent, inadequate, or just plain absent, that task of differentiation and engagement is much harder. When children see that church is a "women and children" thing, they will respond accordingly—by not going to church, or going much less.

Curiously, both adult women as well as men will conclude subconsciously that Dad's absence indicates that going to church is not really a "grown-up" activity. In terms of commitment, a mother's role may be to encourage and confirm, but it is not primary to her adult offspring's decision. Mothers' choices have dramatically less effect upon children than their fathers', and without him she has little effect on the primary lifestyle choices her offspring make in their religious observances.

Her major influence is not on regular attendance at all but on keeping her irregular children from lapsing altogether. This is, needless to say, a vital work, but even then, without the input of the father (regular or irregular), the proportion of regulars to lapsed goes from 60/40 to 40/60.

Of Huge Import

The findings may be for Switzerland, but from conversations with English clergy and American friends, I doubt we would get very different findings from similar surveys here or in the United States. Indeed, I believe some English studies have found much the same thing. The figures are of huge import to our evangelization and its underlying theology.

First, we (English and Americans both) are ministering in a society that is increasingly unfaithful in spiritual and physical relationships. There is a huge number of single-parent families and a complexity of step-relationships or, worse, itinerant male figures in the household, whose primary interest can almost never be someone else's child.

The absentee father, whoever's "fault" the divorce was and however faithful he might be to his church, is unlikely to spend the brief permitted weekend "quality" time with his child in church. A young lad in my congregation had to choose between his loyalty to the faith and spending Sunday with Dad, now 40 miles away, fishing or playing soccer. Some choice for a lad of eleven: earthly father versus heavenly Father, with all the crossed ties of love and loyalties that choice involves. With that agonizing maturity forced on children by our "failures," he reasoned that his heavenly Father would understand his absence better than his dad.

Sociologically and demographically the current trends are severely against the church's mission if fatherhood is in decline. Those children who do maintain attendance, in spite of their father's absence, albeit predominantly sporadically, may instinctively understand the community of nurture that is the motherhood of the Church. But they will inevitably look to fill that yawning gap in their spiritual lives, the experience of fatherhood that is derived from the true fatherhood of God. Here they will find little comfort in the liberalizing churches that dominate the English scene and the mainline scene in the United States.

Second, we are ministering in churches that accepted fatherlessness as a norm, and even an ideal. Emasculated Liturgy, gender-free Bibles, and a fatherless flock are increasingly on offer. In response, these churches' decline has, unsurprisingly, accelerated. To minister to a fatherless society, these churches, in their unwisdom, have produced their own single-parent family parish model in the woman priest.

The idea of this politically contrived iconic destruction and biblically disobedient initiative was that it would make the Church relevant to the society in which it ministered. Women priests would make women feel empowered and thereby drawn in. (As more women signed up as publicly opposed to the innovation than ever were in favor, this argument was always a triumph of propaganda over reality.) Men would be attracted by the feminine and motherly aspect of the new ministry. (As the driving force of the movement, feminism, has little time for either femininity or motherhood, this was what Sheridan called "the lie direct.")

And children—our children—would come flocking into the new feminized Church, attracted by the safe, nurturing, non-judgmental environment a church freed of its "masculine hegemony" would offer. (As the core doctrines of feminism regarding infants are among the most hostile of any philosophy—and even women who weren't totally sold on its heresies often had to put their primary motherhood responsibilities on the back burner to answer the call—children were never likely to be major beneficiaries.)

The Churches Are Losing

Nor are these conclusions a matter of simple disagreement between warring parties in a divided church. The figures are in and will continue to come in. The churches are losing men and, if the Swiss figures are correct, are therefore losing children. You cannot feminize the church and keep the men, and you cannot keep the children if you do not keep the men.

In the Church of England, the ratio of men to women in the pre-1990s was 45 percent to 55 percent. In line with the Free Churches (which in England include the Methodists and Presbyterians) and others that have preceded us down the feminist route, we are now approaching the 37 percent/63 percent split. As these latter figures are percentages of a now much smaller total, an even more alarming picture emerges. Of the 300,000 who left the Church of England during the "Decade of Evangelism" some 200,000 must have been men.

It will come as no surprise to learn, in the light of the Swiss evidence, that even on official figures, children's attendance in the Church of England dropped by 50 percent over the Decade of Evangelism. According to reliable independent projections, it might actually have dropped down by two-thirds by the year 2000. (Relevant statistics abruptly ceased being announced in 1996, when the 50 percent drop was achieved.)

And what have we seen in the societies to which the churches are supposed to be witnessing? In the secular world, a fatherless society, or significant rejection of traditional fatherhood, has produced rapid and dreadful results. The disintegration of the family follows hard upon the amorality and emotional anarchy that flow from the neutering, devaluing, or exclusion of the loving and protective authority of the father.

Young men, whose basic biology does not lead them in the direction of civilization, emerge into a society that, in less than 40 years, has gone from certainty and encouragement about their maleness to a scarcely disguised contempt for and confusion about their role and vocation. This is exhibited in everything from the educational system, which from the 1960s onward has been used as a tool of social engineering, to the entertainment world, where the portrayal of decent honorable men turns up about as often as snow in summer.

In the absence of fatherhood, it is scarcely surprising that there is an alarming rise in the feral male. This is most noticeable in street communities, where co-operatives of criminality seek to establish brutally and directly that respect, ritual, and pack order so essential to male identity. But it is not absent from the manicured lawns of suburban England, where dysfunctional "families" produce equally alarming casualty rates and children with an inability to make and sustain deep or enduring relationships between male and female.

The Churches' Collapse

One might have hoped, with such an abundance of evidence at hand, that the churches would have been more confident in biblical teaching, which has always stood against the destructive forces of materialistic paganism which feminism represents. Alas, not. Their collapse in the face of this well-organized and plausible heresy may be officially dated from the moment they approved the ordination of women—1992 for the Church of England—but the preparation for it began much earlier.

One does not need to go very far through the procedures by which the Church of England selects its clergy or through its theological training to realize that it offers little place for genuine masculinity. The constant pressure for "flexibility," "sensitivity," "inclusivity," and "collaborative ministry" is telling. There is nothing wrong with these concepts in themselves, but as they are taught and insisted upon, they bear no relation to what a man (the un-neutered man) understands them to mean.

Men are perfectly capable of being all these things without being wet, spineless, feeble-minded, or compromised, which is how these terms translate in the teaching. They will not produce men of faith or fathers of the faith communities. They will certainly not produce icons of Christ and charismatic apostles. They are very successful at producing malleable creatures of the institution, unburdened by authenticity or conviction and incapable of leading and challenging. Men, in short, who would not stand up in a draft.

Curiously enough, this new feminized man does not seem to be quite as attractive to the feminists as they had led us to believe. He does not seem to hold the attention of children (much less boys who might want to follow him into the priesthood). He is frankly repellent to ordinary blokes. But a priest who is comfortable with his masculinity and maturing in his fatherhood (domestic and/or pastoral) will be a natural magnet in a confused and disordered society and Church.

Other faith communities, like Muslims and Orthodox Jews, have no doubt about this and would not dream of emasculating their faith. Churches in countries under persecution have no truck with the corrosive errors of feminism. Why would they? These are expensive luxuries for comfortable and decadent churches. The persecuted need to know urgently what works and what will endure. They need their men.

A church that is conspiring against the blessings of patriarchy not only disfigures the icon of the First Person of the Trinity, effects disobedience to the example and teaching of the Second Person of the Trinity, and rejects the Pentecostal action of the Third Person of the Trinity but, more significantly for our society, flies in the face of the sociological evidence!

No father—no family—no faith. Winning and keeping men is essential to the community of faith and vital to the work of all mothers and the future salvation of our children.



21 posted on 12/10/2004 10:49:39 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
#39


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/dg20041211.shtml

Doug Giles (archive)


December 11, 2004


I hate to get your panties in a wad, you pomosexual gender-line-blurrers , you, but the vast, vast majority of American men want to be more like William Wallace and less like Will and Grace.  

From the thousands of positive emails I receive week after week from men and women regarding my polemic attempts in print, radio and TV to re-inject, guard and perpetuate the testosterone attitude ... it seems that the general populace isn't queuing up for a radical dose of 21st century misandry.

Yes, much to my delight, we "non-progressives" are not cool with the metrosexual healing the cultural quacks are attempting to administer to the male collective, and we are going back towards the traditional definitions of the role of men in society.

So ... what are the traditional elements of the masculine spirit?  Well, from Homer to Gomer, from Abraham to the Apostle Paul, there are three primary traits that men, if properly raised and allowed to express their biology, will and should naturally exhibit.  

They are the following:  
· Competition
· Independence
· Responsibility

Last week's column addressed the good and natural competitive streak with which men come out of momma's womb, and now I'll turn my guns to points two and three: Independence and Responsibility.

The second classic characteristic men will naturally exhibit, that is, if they escape the aggressive societal softening of the metrosexual emasculators, is ... independence.  

Traditionally, men have prized their autonomy more than Clay Aiken does his gale-force-wind-proof hair gel and his chartreuse neckerchief.   Men, at least those who have not been morphed into obedient stooges of contemporary society, do not like to be confined, corralled, curbed, interfered with, or domesticated by anyone.

Y'know it is right for a man while he is a boy to be dependant upon mummy ... petted and cajoled ... flattered and fattened ... by mother's you-can-do-no-wrong-honey loving touch.  But come on, America ... somehow we have developed today a race of Nancy-boys, absolute caricatures of the classic male imago, who have extended their mommy's breast feeding, culture's coddling and government's hand holding into their 30's and beyond!  

At the hub of man's constituent make up is the natural and spiritual resistance to hanging on to any mortal or institution too long for subsistence.  By natural command, man is to be independent and is hard wired to go and get a life apart from the nurturing and supportive arms of anyone ... and that includes the government.  

In ancient cultures, the young male was made to be sovereign, separated from the safe arms of the feminine touch usually at the ripe old age of ... twelve.  Young men were expected to separate, never to return to a codependent existence.  

Traditionally, young men fled from getting in touch with their supposed "feminine side" and instead they tapped into the gritty and grubby competitive "real world" where you thrive or die.  (By the way ... if I want to get in touch with my feminine side ... I'll grab my wife.)

Unfortunately, in the home, in the church, and with our government ... thanks to the societal deconstructionists, we have created an extended womb with an umbilical cord of enormous proportions that can sucker and baby men all the way up until their mid-life crises.  Historically, this co-dependent wet womb which is presently afforded chronologically mature males past adolescence has utterly weakened whatever society in which it has been allowed to fester.

Lastly, the most distinctive trait of the tri-fold traditional masculine make up is the way men are to take care of those under their watch ... i.e., being responsible and accountable for the well being of family and society.  

Naturally, men were the pillars of the public, being responsible to God, to family, to church and to their culture as providers and protectors of family and friends.  It was the man who steered the family unit and civilization with firmness, directing them with rules and principles, being dependable, loving and just.  In ancient times the father was not a mere Al Bundy-like sperm donor who lived at Hooters, but a community elder, a moderator and a servant leader who created edicts and ordered kingdoms.  

One bigger-than-Dallas-sized sign that America could be headed down the toilet is how today's metrosexual man avoids responsibility and accountability and is allowed to blame low blood sugar, his inner child, the environment or the freaky yellow wall paper on his delivery room wall as the reason why he hasn't "gotten with it."  

My ClashPoint is this: if concerned conservatives want to improve our nation, then we have got to resist the current culture of man hatred, wherever and whenever we find it, whether that means not going to movies with an emasculating message, or shouting "that's bull**t" when we hear and see this stuff on TV or in the classroom, or, more positively, developing old school ways of creating environments conducive to raising warriors and wild men. Whatever peaceful form this resistance takes ... it is a must that we verbally wail our disapproval of this incessant dissing of men.

Look, our times demand strong men more than Mariah Carey does Evian ... and only Evian water for her Pekinese.  It is up to us middle-aged old boys to preserve and perpetuate the grand testosterone fog God created us to live in for the next generation of young warriors.  

One great way to do this is by buying these killer books:
· Future Men by Douglas Wilson
· The Church Impotent by Leon Podle
· Raising Modern Day Knights by Robert Lewis
· The Code of Man by Waller Newell

Then, go over their contents with the male adolescent charges under our tutelage.
#40
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/20977.htm

A 29-year-old Connecticut woman pleaded not guilty yesterday to charges she had a sexual relationship with an 8-year-old boy who was her daughter's playmate.
Tammy Imre, a part-time receptionist, is charged with first-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. She remains held on a $250,000 bond.

If convicted, Imre, of Stratford, could serve more than 20 years in prison. She requested a trial by jury.

According to the arrest affidavit, Imre told investigators she considered the relationship "like a fantasy and she was the girlfriend and he was the boyfriend and that someday they could end up together in a relationship."

The third-grader still attends school but is now in counseling, his mother has said.

Evelyn Imre, the suspect's mother, declined comment after the hearing in Bridgeport Superior Court. She said earlier this month that her daughter had "a little mental problem" but she declined to disclose details.

Defense attorney Don Papcsi said a psychological evaluation for his client, who has no criminal record, is likely.

He said Imre has her own version of events.

"That's what we're going to be investigating aggressively," he said. "She does have a different side of the story." AP

_____________________________________________________________

Well thank goodness it's just a "little mental problem".  This is one jury I'd want to be on.

#41
Father's Issues / What do you all think of this?
Aug 27, 2004, 02:30:25 PM
My ex wrote a short letter to the kids the other day, stating that he understood that the kids were angry with him and XXXX, but he loved them.  He then wanted to know if the little one could climb stairs yet, and that he replaced the boy's malfuctioning guitar(he got it for Christmas, as did his stepbrothers).  So predictable, because it's been a pattern repeated throughout the years.  If they hadn't been outed in the hospital room, my son's dad would have just held it over his head. Lol, he even bought him another amp.  The ex knows he's in deep doodoo...

There was no apology for the discomfort, or violation of these children's sense of safety from CPS visits based on lies.  There was no guarantee that it would not happen again.

He is coming by tomorrow.

What I would like to do is to confront him when he comes over tomorrow and ask him point blank to look the kids in the eye, and promise them that this will never happen again.  My oldest daughter and son in law are coming tonight(and staying the weekend) to help me do more packing.  My son in law can be a witness, but I'm trying to figure out if I could find another one on short notice.  Someone not family.

Your thoughts please.  Thanks.
#42
Hi everyone, I'm posting this here because I'm hoping to get some quick advice.

I received a visit from a CPS worker this past tuesday.  I listened to the usual allegations, filthy house, filthy children (son will turn 17 next month-really appreciated being called filthy), bug bites (fleas-but not a big problem), something else I can't remember.....but then she mentioned HOMESCHOOLING!  

Satan and his minion strike again.  The last time the baby was there, she told them that her and her brother were going to be homeschooled.  Well they told her that she could NOT be homeschooled.  More about that some other time.  

My kids were out of town staying with their sister.  I politely refused to let her in the house, stating that I had a right to refuse admittance.  We spoke on the porch and I answered her questions.  I can't believe how nosy she was about things like probate, etc.  I cut that short, politely explaining that it had nothing to do with the reason she was here.

I called my daughter and let her know what was going on, and that her brother and sister  had to talk to her over the phone.  He was out, but the girl did talk to the social worker on the phone.  Her sister was spitting nails and had her father paged at work.  I don't know why she wastes the energy dialing the man's number.  My son had no intention of talking to the worker, but since he came home and the worker called this morning, he had no choice.  Now I have to retrieve the youngest from her vacation, and bring her back down so the worker can see them.

Okay here is the problem.  I feel that she has no right to inspect my home.  I am in the process of packing and sorting over 50 yrs of belongings.  I have tons of paperwork, phone calls, and other time wasting crap to deal with.  Yes I know many of you all do too, but I don't feel comfortable with this woman's insistence of getting into the house.  There isn't anything to hide except years old water damage, but we're moving for chrissakes.  Everything is all over the place being sorted.  I can't get this stuff straightened out just like that.  I just cleaned all the important stuff over the weekend for a triple birthday party.

There is another thing.  She is pressuring me to sign an affidavit giving  a statement refuting the allegations.  At the original interview, I told her that I would prefer to consult legal advice before putting anything in writing.  I do not like this one bit.  The form # is DCFS 853 (Rev 5/90)  She said to me on the phone that this was for my benefit.  Riiiight.

Now I realize how important it is to remain cooperative, because I have no choice.  How do I enforce my right to privacy and redress against false and frivolous complaints?  The worker told me that they get a lot of these complaints, so they know what to expect when they go out.  This will last for the next 8 years.  I guess I should bring in all their medical cards/records/school records into the San Bernardino Co CPS office when we move, so I can introduce myself and cut to the damn chase.

Can't afford a lawyer.  Don't have time to look for one.  She'll be out next week to poke around.  The Prince of Darkness smells blood.  Like I said, they pump her for info when they aren't ignoring her.   We found out that just because my mom was mentally disabled when she rewrote the will in favor of her youngest sister it still stands because I trusted my aunt.  She played us for several years.  When she came out for the funeral, she removed papers from the house, the wills that my folks made many years ago in particular.  My aunt of all people.  Just damn.  So we'll  be staying with my daughter for several months.  If CPS shows up there, my daughter's bf will show up at her daddy's house.

Thanks for any advice....(I know a couple of things don't quite make sense but I have to get off the computer)

#43
Hi, hope everyone is doing well.

My friend just found out that his 15 yr old daughter had a nervous breakdown last night.  At least that is what the professionals are calling this.  She's back in the treatment center that she was placed in when she had a suicide attempt in the past.  

We all know how long these stories are, and I'm trying to come up with a short, but informative narrative about what's been going on.

My friend injures himself at work, but keeps working, which really wrecks his back.  This is approximately 10 yrs ago.

Wife meets up with tweekers, and gets hooked on Meth.

He's doing odd jobs to supplement the welfare check that his ambulance chasing lawyer told him to apply for, to save the house.  They have 3 kids.  It actually took 9 years for him to get permanent disability.

When he comes home, he finds all these bums in his house.  They're all tweeking. I'm honestly trying to keep this short, but you need to know what the backround is.

So she eventually leaves with one of these guys, and my friend is taking care of the kids in the house he is paying on.  Now the good part.  She enters rehab, and I think his sister paid for it.  It was one of those fancy places.

She comes back long enough to grab the kids and file for divorce and custody.  Mind you, these idiot friends of hers stole and sold everything they could get their hands on when my friend was gone for a couple of months, and kicked the shit out of the place.  He couldn't put it up for sale, but couldn't pay the mortgage payments.  No kids=no welfare=no money.  

He made the fatal, but understandable error of going pro se.  Of course the judge gave this ho custody of the kids.  You see, when you chase some guy who is sitting in your living room out of the house and threaten to kill him, well because you know he's sleeping with her, you have an anger management problem.

Now for the bad part.  The oldest did not want to leave her dad.  Her mother will not only not forgive her for that, but is making her life an intolerable hell.  After the court decision, mother and kids moved to Ventura County, which is a 3 hour drive from where the dad lives.  He does not get regular visitation.   The younger kids fell in line, but the oldest one won't budge.  Her emails are monitored, and she actually got a yahoo account, but her mother found out.  She got grounded and chased around the house for calling her father once.  

Her friends parents have been sympathetic, and let her call her dad from their phones.

My friend also mentioned that she was having a problem  between her bf's.  Apparently this idiot of a mother let her start dating at 13.  He also  mentioned some of the meds they have her on, like Depo Provera.  Anyway I guess she went off the deep end and kicked the crap out of her younger sister, who has belts in Tae Kwon Do.  Ouch.  Mommy went straight for the phone and had her locked up again.

My thought after the Mary Kate Olsen thing, is that if mommy can get conservatorship over that child, she'll never be able to live with her father even when she is 18.  I warned him about that 2 weeks ago, and now this. The treatment facility seems to be cooperating with him, but every time he's called, they said she's asleep.  They might have her sedated?  

I told him a couple of hours ago to call his ambulance chaser.  Be cool and don't say a word to anyone but your attorney.  He is entitled to a public defender, and his girl can get a court appointed lawyer.  This crap has to stop or she'll never make it her 18th birthday.

I have been searching the archives and can't find anything that comes close to this situation.  Anyone have any ideas about helping them out?

#44
There was information that Berg had lent an accused terrorist his laptop, and helped him set up an email account.

Now many of us didn't understand exactly what was involved, until someone spelled it out for us dummies.

You set up an email account with Hotmail, for instance.  The person you are corresponding with has the password and screen name.  You write an email, and instead of  sending an email to someone, you simply save the message as a draft.

The person who shares this account with you, will then check the email account and read the message you left in the draft folder.  That message is replaced by a reply draft message.  Of course the person who needs to converse in this level of secrecy must not use the home computer.

Pretty slick when certain types of parents choose to hit speaker phone during phone calls, and hack their kids email accounts.  I suggested this to my friend, and thought I would pass it along to you all as well....
#45
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/03/30/financial1821EST0327.DTL

Lilly wins approval for injectable form of top-selling Zyprexa

MARK JEWELL, AP Business Writer
  Tuesday, March 30, 2004
 

(03-30) 15:21 PST INDIANAPOLIS (AP) --

Eli Lilly and Co. has won federal approval to sell an injectable version of its top-selling anti-psychotic Zyprexa, giving doctors a new option to quickly calm agitated patients.

The Food and Drug Administration's approval of the new shot form of the eight-year-old drug is expected to supplement Zyprexa's tablet form, used for long-term treatment of schizophrenia and the manic stage of bipolar disorder. The faster-acting injectable version is designed for single or occasional uses in patients during episodes when they become agitated and in some cases violent.

Zyprexa recorded $4.3 billion in sales last year, accounting for about a third of Indianapolis-based Lilly's sales. But it is undergoing a patent challenge from generic drug makers and faces increasing competition from newer anti-psychotics including Bristol-Myers Squibb's Abilify and Pfizer's Geodon.

Robert Hazlett, an industry analyst with SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, said he expects injectable Zyprexa to prove more effective and therefore become more widely used than the shot form of Geodon, the only other drug in its class available in injectable form.

The drugs are atypical anti-psychotics, a class that a dozen years ago began replacing old-line treatments that tend to have more severe side effects, including involuntary facial and body movements.

Geodon's injectable form was approved in June 2002. While the injectable form of Geodon is approved for treatment of agitated schizophrenic patients, Zyprexa's intramuscular form is approved for that use and for agitated patients with bipolar mania, Lilly spokeswoman Marni Lemons said.

Zyprexa remains the top seller in its class, and four years ago won FDA approval to treat bipolar mania. The drug has been prescribed to 12.5 million people since its 1996 introduction to treat schizophrenia.

Hazlett forecast the injectable form's approval could boost Zyprexa's annual sales by $100 million to $150 million.

Lilly shares closed up 20 cents on Tuesday at $65.80 on the New York Stock Exchange.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine if this stuff came in a can like Mace?  Bwahahahaa!  How about a dart gun? "Now, now, calm down (insert the name of your favorite psycho here), this won't hurt a bit".  

Lilly's stock is going to go through the roof with this!




 

#46
http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1724535

(Picture #3 needs to be enlarged.  I'm having trouble reading it.)

"You can look through 'em all."

Up to his ears in legal documents, Phillip Dean is fed up with the judicial system.

"That's the kind of court system we've got in Jackson County, Alabama and I want everybody to know," Dean says.

So he put a sign in his front lawn saying "Our Court System Is a Joke."

A message landing him behind bars.

"I was in a cell about four foot wide and six foot long and nothing in it but a toilet," he explains.

Arrest orders signed by Judge Haralson claim Dean to be in direct contempt of court, even though the sign is on County Road 107, not in the county courthouse.

"The signs were so derogatory to the court they could not be ignored," Haralson responds in a local paper.

With Dean locked up, the signs were removed.

"Before they would let me go in front of Judge Haralson," Dean says. "They put leg shackles, they put handcuffs, they put chains from my legs up to my waist. they put a chain around my waist. they put chains from my waist up here and had my hands pulled up like this."

With an apology, Haralson released Dean after a day in jail,but the experience leaves Dean with unanswered questions.

"When it gets to where a man hadn't got any free speech in this world, what has he got?" he asks.

Answers he hopes to find with a message already back in place.
____________________________________________________________

The message is, if I'm reading that one pic correctly, that he has an issue with mommy letting his kids smoke pot.  Too bad the paper didn't mention this was in conjunction with a custody issue.  Hey Cindy...clean up on aisle 4!
#47
My ex and oldest girl went round and round about why he didn't show up at the grandbaby's 2nd birthday.  She ended up blocking sender.  I get a note from this pompous jackass today.  

You wrote:

I'm writing To Ask That You Please Help With Transportation on the Kids for Child Exchange. I Cannot Continue To Make A 300 Mile Trip Every Other Weekend.
I Would Like You to Drop the Kids Off In Pasadena (about 40 Minutes from Torrance) by  8pm Fridays, Where We Drop Of Anne's Boys.
This Needs To Happen As I Cannot Make The Trip Fridays Any Longer.
It Is Only Fair To Ask you're Help with This Matter. I Have Taken This Responsibility On Myself With No Questions Asked For Sometime Now.
As It States In OUr Divorce Settelment, YOur Responsible For Transportation On Exchanges, And To This Point I Have Not Disputed Picking Up Joe & Brenda Everyime.But It's Time For Help And I'm Asking That You Please Comply.
Respond As Soon As Possible With My Request.


Damn.   Your spelling, grammar, and puncuation are hell on the eyes.  Do you have any idea how hard it was for me to retype that load of garbage?

I have a suggestion.  Anne can take care of her responsibilities towards her children, by herself.  I neither drive at night, nor do I drive that 405 freeway.  My defensive driving skills aren't up to dealing with kamikazies.  Our number #1 priority should be the safety of the children.  Until my car started continually breaking down, I travelled to Apple Valley to pick up the kids.  Then I picked them up when you shacked up with Anne at her folks house in Alta Loma.  If you would actually read the court order for yourself, you'd see that my job is to pick the kids up, not drop them off.  You made the choice to move out to BFE Palmdale.  If you and Anne are having a problem with transporting the various children, well I'm sorry but it's your problem, not mine.  Maybe Yahell says it's a 40 minute drive to Pasadena from my house, but I've been through there and it's more like an hour.  I can't get through there in the dark.  End of discussion.

It's only fair?  You need to get over yourself.  You have caused your children nothing but pain.  "Child Exchange"?  That is just a prime example of what you actually feel for these kids.  Why do you even bother?  I have never blocked your access to your children.  You have unlimited phone access, and all the visitation you had time for.    I tried to cooperate with you in the past, however you took an inch and ran a mile.  I am not cooperating with you beyond what is stated in the court papers that you conveniently discover on occasion.

I am hoping to relocate back to the desert in several months.  This should do something towards helping your issues with the personal inconvenience of being a father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
Okay how far out of line am I in my response?  He is expected to pick the kids up tomorrow.  I don't EVER talk to him when he picks the kids up, or drops them off.  I stay in the house, because his wife gives me evil looks, and I'd rather not "go there".  I have enough things to deal with.

Editing, or other suggestions are most welcome....
#48
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1078053329102990.xml


DNA testing upsets parentage laws


Sunday, February 29, 2004

By Doug Guthrie
The Grand Rapids Press




Modern science is wreaking havoc on an age-old paternity rule.

 
  From Our Advertiser


   
     
Two key court decisions on Kent County cases have state lawmakers considering the growing conflict between the certainty of DNA testing and the practicality of a decision issued by an English judge more than 200 years ago.

While courts today routinely rely on DNA testing in all other paternity disputes, state law sometimes referred to as the Bastardy Statute or by its British common law origin, Lord Mansfield's Rule, defines a child born into a marriage to be a product of that marriage.

The husband of the mother is legally bound to support the child -- wanted or not -- as though it were his own.

Meanwhile, the biological father has no legal standing. He cannot be held responsible for the child's welfare as long as the marriage remains intact, and he has no legal claim even to visit his child.

At issue is whether the biological father should be held responsible for a child's support, or whether the centuries-old court rule meant to protect the sanctity of marriage should remain in effect.

"This is one of the most familiar rules of law. It is ancient," said Kristine Mullendore, a professor of legal studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County prosecutor.

It is considered essential to holding some families together, Mullendore said, but warned science and social changes may have moved beyond ancient logic.

"It is an area where something probably should be done," she said. "However, this must be done by the Legislature, not the courts."

Sen. Kenneth Sikkema, R-Grandville, who plans to talk with other legislators about the issue and the Kent County cases, said the problem points out "the demon of modern science" and the often unwelcome disruptions it can bring to society.

Mansfield's rule was affirmed last month by the state Supreme Court in a case involving a Rockford man who wanted to support and visit his biological daughter in Grand Rapids. The state's high court supported the mother and her husband's rejection of the biological father's interference in their family.

Now, the issue is alive again in Kent County Family Court, where a biological father claims he was wrongfully ordered to pay $77 per week to support his child born to a married woman.


'Things happened'

Brendon Keith is Anthony Reynolds' son. DNA comparisons have proven the 20-month-old Walker boy's paternity to within a 99.9 percent certainty. Reynolds met Amy Cook-Keith at a party in July 2002. Cook-Keith was and remains married to Donald Keith.

"I met a woman and things happened," Reynolds said. "They were married. I was a single guy. As far as I knew, everything was taken care of, but that's a moot point. Wrong or right, she got pregnant."

The boy was born on June 11, 2002, legally recognized as Amy Cook-Keith's only child. One month later, Cook-Keith asked the court to order Reynolds to pay child support.

"She told me and I didn't believe her," Reynolds said. " Well, people said the test proves I'm the father and they were making me pay. They said I had to pay."

Two days before Christmas 2002, Reynolds was ordered to pay Cook-Keith, plus an amount to cover the period dating back to the child's birth. The order was signed by retired Ionia/Montcalm County Circuit Judge James Nichols, who was filling in that day for Kent County Circuit Judge Paul Sullivan.

Cook-Keith and her husband, Donald Keith, have been married six years. She said they separated for nearly a year, when she met Reynolds. said they reunited when she was pregnant.

"My husband told me he'd take care of me, emotionally, but not financially," Cook-Keith said. "He loves the baby now. We've all been together for almost two years now, but he doesn't buy his diapers or his food. We're not trying to stick a knife into this man and bleed him. I need the support to raise his child."

Reynolds is an auto mechanic who lives on Grand Rapids' Northeast Side. He has two children from a previous marriage, including custody of a teenage daughter.

Reynolds was granted visitation by the court, but he said he felt uncomfortable when he went to Cook-Keith's home, especially when greeted at the door by her husband.

"It was a family. It wasn't like I was watching a man who was mad about this child," Reynolds said. "I was very leery, but he was very friendly, very much a father. I'm the one who felt out of place.

"When a woman has a baby and decides to let it out for adoption instead of having an abortion, that's considered a good thing. I'm not doing anything different. This is a family, and they appeared to me to be a good family. He has a mother and a father and their love."

In the Rockford case, Lord Mansfield's Rule shielded the family. Cook-Keith said in her case, it could split her marriage if it is applied.

"If it's a law to protect the marriage, it can go the opposite way, too," Cook-Keith said. "This could break our marriage. My husband isn't happy. He shouldn't have to support his (Reynolds's) child.

"The state is saying my son is not allowed to have a biological father. What if he needed a blood transfusion or a transplant?"

Kenneth Sanders, the lawyer who represented the Rockford man and lost, later was hired by Reynolds to argue the opposite side of Lord Mansfield's Rule.

"It can't be both ways," Sanders said. "The Supreme Court has said the law won't allow a child to have two fathers."

Reynolds's case now is under consideration by Kent County Family Court Judge Steven Pestka, who is expected to issue an opinion soon.
____________________________________________________________

I wonder if Mr. Reynolds'attorney has thought about ordering Mr. Keith to take a fertility test, sperm count measurement, whatever.  I'm betting that the Keiths decided to inseminate Mrs. Keith without the hassle and expense of a fertility clinic.  

This whole story stinks to high heaven.

You can read more heartawarming stories by checking out the link.


#49
We all really need to get laws passed for this issue!

http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml

Injustice by Default

How the effort to catch "deadbeat dads" ruins innocent men's lives

Matt Welch




Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the state of California began trampling on his life. "There was a loud angry pounding at my door at five o'clock in the morning," he recalls. "Very scary."

It was a female police officer with a complaint accusing him of being the father of an 8-year-old girl in Contra Costa County, east of San Francisco. "I'm like, 'Great! I'm definitely not the father of anybody,'" he says.

There were excellent reasons to think so. He had never met or heard of the mother of the child. He had never lived in Northern California, and at the time of conception (spring 1991) he was attending the University of California at Santa Barbara, beginning a monogamous relationship that would last for two years. What's more, he's a condom fanatic -- only once in his life, Pierce swears, has he failed to use a rubber during intercourse, and that was "many years after." (He's been a friend of mine for 15 years, and I believe him.) And if the summons had included the mother's testimony (it was supposed to, but did not), he would have seen himself described as a "tall" and "dark" black man named "Anthony Pierce." Pierce is a hair over five feet, nine inches; he is so light-skinned that even people who know him sometimes don't realize he's black; and no one calls him Anthony except his mom.

The front page of the court document gave simple but misleading instructions: "You have 30 days to respond to this lawsuit. You may respond in one of two ways: 1. File an Answer to the complaint with the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, not with the District Attorney....2. Settle the case with the District Attorney. You may call us at (925) 313-4200 to discuss your case." Concluding incorrectly (but understandably) that he could settle the matter over the phone, Pierce called -- three times that day -- and tried to weave his way through a labyrinthine phone tree. Finally he found a human being, who instructed him to leave a message with a home phone number. The department called him back the next day and left a message; it took another three calls from Pierce before he reached a caseworker for the first time.

"I said, 'What do I need to do? I'm not the father,'" he remembers. "And they were like, 'OK, well this is what you do: You just call in every day, and then we'll understand that you're not it, because if you're it, you're not gonna call us every day.'"

Pierce did everything he was told over the next three weeks of phone tag, except for comprehending that the 30-day deadline for denying paternity in writing was etched in federal law, regardless of what he discussed with Contra Costa employees -- who he says never once told him the clock was ticking. "All they were doing was delaying me from doing what I needed to do," he says. "It's a huge scam -- huge scam....They're just counting the days. They're like, 'Sucker, sucker, sucker, sucker.'...And this is the government!"

Two months later, after the phone conversations had ended and he assumed he was off the hook, Pierce received notice that a "default judgment" had been entered against him, and that he owed $9,000 in child support. He was between dot-com jobs, and his next unemployment check was 25 percent smaller; the state of California had seized and diverted $100 toward his first payment. Suddenly, he was facing several years of automatic wage garnishment, and the shame of being forced to explain to prospective employers why the government considered him a deadbeat dad. "That's when it hit me," he says. "I mean, it's mostly my fault -- 'Fill out the form, dumb-ass!'...But it's so rigged against you, it's ridiculous."

Dad Blamed

What Pierce didn't realize, and what nearly 10 million American men have discovered to their chagrin since the welfare reform legislation of 1996, is that when the government accuses you of fathering a child, no matter how flimsy the evidence, you are one month away from having your life wrecked. Federal law gives a man just 30 days to file a written challenge; if he doesn't, he is presumed guilty. And once that steamroller of justice starts rolling, dozens of statutory lubricants help make it extremely difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to stop -- even, in most cases, if there's conclusive DNA proof that the man is not the child's father.

This stacked deck against accused dads has provoked a backlash movement, triggering "paternity fraud" legislation and related legal challenges in more than a dozen states. Combined with advances in genetic technology, this conflict may end up changing the way we define parenthood. For now, the system aimed at catching "deadbeat dads" illustrates how a noble-sounding effort to help children and taxpayers can trample the rights of innocent people.

Here's how it works: When an accused "obligor" fails, for whatever reason, to send his response on time, the court automatically issues a "default judgment" declaring him the legal father. It does not matter if he was on vacation, was confused, or (as often happens) didn't even receive the summons, or if he simply treated the complaint's deadlines with the same lack of urgency people routinely exhibit toward jury duty summonses -- he's now the dad. "In California, you don't even have to have proof of service of the summons!" says Rod Wright, a recently retired Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who tried and failed to get several paternity-related reform bills, including a proof-of-service requirement, past former Gov. Gray Davis' veto. "They only are obligated to send it to the last known address."

In fact, a March 2003 Urban Institute study commissioned by the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) found that "most noncustodial parents appear to be served by 'substitute' service, rather than personal service, which suggests that noncustodial parents may not know that they have been served." In Los Angeles County, which is notorious for its sloppy summons service and zealous prosecution of alleged fathers it knows to be innocent, nearly 80 percent of paternity establishments come in the form of default judgments. In the state as a whole, which establishes 250,000 paternities a year while collecting $2 billion in child support, a whopping 68 percent of the 158,000 child support orders in 2000 (the last year studied) were default judgments.

Once paternity is "established," even if the government has never communicated with the father, the county court imposes a payment rate and schedule under the statistically mistaken assumption that he makes a full-time salary at minimum wage. (State audits have found that a full 80 percent of default dads don't make even that much.) To collect the money, the county may put a garnish order on the purported father's paycheck or place liens on his assets. If the mother has received welfare assistance after the child was born, the man will be hit with a bill to pay back the state, plus 10 percent annual interest. "That's what they're trying to do, is get some reimbursement to the state," says Carolyn Kelly, public relations officer for the Contra Costa County DCSS. "As you can imagine, [that's] millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars."

If the father falls 30 days behind on his payments, he will be blocked by law from receiving or renewing a driver's license or any "authorization issued by a board that allows a person to engage in a business, occupation, or profession" -- a category that includes teaching credentials, fishing licenses, and state bar memberships. If his credit rating was good, it won't be any more. If his past-due tab exceeds $5,000, the U.S. State Department won't issue him a passport. (An average of 60 Americans discover this each day. Meanwhile, Congress has been pushing to cut the limit to $2,500, while urging the State Department to begin revoking passports, which is allowed under the law.)

"When you tell people about the inequities of the system," Wright says, "they're surprised. They go, 'This is America! You couldn't do that!' And I go, 'Yes, you can.'"

Under the guidelines set forth by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, single mothers can receive welfare only on condition that the state take charge of collecting their child support, including unpaid amounts from the past. If the biological father is not paying support, he will be tracked down and hit with the bill. The admirable goal, which statistics show has partially been achieved, was to encourage more responsible sexual behavior by single women, give two-parent families an incentive to stay together, wean recipients off welfare by forcing them to work, and help them find a little extra cash they didn't have before. At the same time, however, the law gave states an explicit mandate and direct financial incentive to name the maximum number of fathers and extract from them the maximum amount of money.

The bottom-line results have been impressive: Since 1993, according to Senate testimony last March by Marilyn Ray Smith, director of the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, child support collection nationwide jumped from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $19 billion in 2001, while paternity establishments more than doubled, from 659,000 in 1994 to 1.6 million just five years later.

But you can read thousands of pages of laws, reports, and testimonies, and not see a single reference to the importance of naming the right guy, or to the gravity of making a mistake. Since Congress first got into the child support business in 1975, the cornerstone philosophy has been to orient everything toward "the best interest of the child," which in practice has meant ensuring that the kid receives money. Now that the states also have a financial incentive -- they pocket a cut of child support payments, earn performance rewards from the federal government, and enjoy the savings from reduced welfare rolls -- the cash motive is stronger than ever. California, for example, crunches the numbers every which way: total child support dollars collected per dollar of total expenditure, average amount collected per case, and so on. But nowhere does the state bother to count the number of citizens it has wrongfully named as fathers. The bias is overwhelming, and abuses are inevitable.

Paternity Test

Anyone familiar with paternity misestablishment horror stories will tell you that Tony Pierce is a fortunate man. "Oh, he got really lucky," says Taron James, a wrongfully named father who recently founded a group called Veterans Fighting Paternity Fraud. "Mine's going on eight years."

First of all, even at Pierce's current low, entry-level salary, he's rolling in dough compared to most default dads. According to the Urban Institute study, of the 834,000 Californians owing child support in 2001, "over 60 percent of debtors have recent net [annual] incomes below $10,000. Only 1 percent have recent net incomes in excess of $50,000." It's safe to guess that, also unlike Pierce, most don't have good friends who are high-powered lawyers willing to work pro bono. Like obtaining a green card, which is a hellishly complex process navigated disproportionately
by the poor, fighting a paternity complaint is nearly inconceivable without legal representation, which Wright says costs a "minimum" of $2,000. "If he can't get the two grand together, you know what?" Wright says. "He's shit out of luck."

Pierce's lawyer, Kim Thigpen, is normally an entertainment attorney, so her crash-course education in family law came as a shock. "I've never seen anything like it," she says. Thigpen was able to get the default judgment set aside -- not canceled -- on grounds of excusable neglect and mistaken identity, thereby blocking the wage garnishment until the mother and child settled the question once and for all by checking their DNA against Pierce's. Nearly three years and $10,000 in legal expenses later, they're still waiting for the mother to comply. (It was far easier for Contra Costa County to declare Pierce the father from 400 miles away than to compel the local-resident mother to show up for a DNA test.) At the hearing, the county attorney admitted that Pierce looked nothing like the mother's description, a fact that a simple Google search would have easily revealed, since Tony publishes a Web site that includes several dozen pictures of himself.

So how was Pierce fingered? How low is the legal threshold for placing men in the cross hairs of default justice? Both Contra Costa County and the California DCSS refused to discuss the specifics of this or any other case, citing privacy regulations (though Contra Costa's Carolyn Kelly did point out that "if you don't contact us, there's nothing we can do"). But a look at how the process works reveals great potential for error.

Counties typically launch paternity investigations for one of two reasons: Either a parent or custodian directly asks for help in locating a biological parent, or a mother applies for welfare, which now is reported to the local child support system. If the mother was unwed, says California DCSS Assistant Director Leora Gerhenzon, "you ask about when you became pregnant, why you believe that date is correct, whether or not the father was named on the birth certificate, has the father seen the child,...does the father provide for support, has he ever lived with the child,...a Social Security number....It's a half-hour [interview], or even an hour and a half to two hours."

What if the only information the mother provides, I ask Gerhenzon, is that it was 10 years ago, with a white guy named Matt Welch, now between 30 and 40 years old, who maybe lives in the Los Angeles area?

"In that case, now it depends," she says. "We run our search on him; if we come back with one Matt Welch who lives in L.A., whose birthday fits that 10-year range, and we have nobody else, we presume in general we have the person. If we come back with three Matt Welches, all of a sudden we know there's a problem. We have to call her back in, or call her on the phone, and say 'OK, here's what we've pulled up. We need more help from you to identify which is the correct [one].'"

So a name, race, vague location, and a broad age range is sufficient to launch a process that could quickly lead to a default judgment, asset liens, and a blocked passport? "Right. Right," Gerhenzon confirms. "If it's clear that she's given us enough identifying information to come up with one discrete name, we would go ahead." Wouldn't that make people with unusual names easier targets? "Absolutely."

In addition to a low threshold for accusing men of paternity, the system lacks penalties for naming the wrong father. Mothers sign their declarations under penalty of perjury, Gerhenzon says, but neither she nor anyone else I talked to for this article could recall a single case where a mother was charged with a crime for naming the wrong man. In fact, until recently California hasn't had any way to see whether a woman had named different candidates in different counties. Asked how a caseworker might respond after discovering such a disparity, Gerhenzon says, "I think in all likelihood they would confront the custodial parent with both names, and say, 'Who is the appropriate parent?'" For both the mother and the state, the punishment for making a mistake is indirect, in the form of receiving less child support. (The state is much less successful in collecting from default dads, on average, and the wrongly named defaults surely pay the least.)

So how many default judgments catch the wrong guy? Nobody knows. Paternity reform activists point to a 2000 study by the American Association of Blood Banks that found 30 percent of the 300,000 paternity DNA tests conducted at accredited centers nationwide excluded the father. But the actual percentage of wrongfully named default dads is certainly much lower, since these samples come largely from people with doubts about paternity (as opposed to real deadbeat dads, who have considerable reason to avoid a DNA test).

Whatever the number, the state of California recognizes misidentification of fathers as a serious problem. "Some default orders are expected," reported the Urban Institute, "but a default rate of 71 percent statewide indicates that something is terribly wrong." In its study, which addressed the collectibility of California's $17 billion in outstanding support, the Urban Institute's No. 1 recommendation was to "reduce default orders." The DCSS now has a Default Work Group, established at the behest of former Gov. Davis after he vetoed one of the reform bills, that is preparing recommendations for reducing the rate.

"What we have done in the past is sped up many of these defaults," Gerhenzon says. "And they were penny-wise and pound foolish, maybe, to go ahead and get quick orders.... And what we've certainly learned through our collectibility study, and...through general customer service, is that it is far, far better to get the right parent up front....In cases where we actually, because of the default, have the wrong parent, we end up collecting a whole lot less money."

Innocence Is No Defense

The systems for establishing paternity and providing child support are replete with legal deadlines that vary from state to state. Besides having 30 days to respond to a paternity complaint, an accused father in California has 180 days to contest a child support order and two years from birth to challenge paternity using DNA evidence (unless he has signed a voluntary declaration of paternity in the hospital under the federal government's new Paternity Opportunity Program, in which case he has just 60 days). If, for what-ever reasons, any of these deadlines aren't met, no amount of evidence can move the state to review the case; the DCSS has to be sued. Unlike capital murder convictions, which are being overturned around the country because of DNA evidence, family court cases typically hew to the "finality of judgment" principle to prevent disruptions in children's lives. Or, in the words of former California legislator Rod Wright, "It ain't your kid, you can prove it ain't your kid, and they say, 'So what?'"

That's how a man like Taron James could be slapped with a support bill for thousands of dollars from Los Angeles County in 2002, and continue to be barred from using his notary public license, even after producing convincing DNA evidence and notarized testimony from the mother that her 11-year-old son, whom he's seen exactly once and looks nothing like, is not his child and that she no longer seeks his support. James says his name was placed on the child's birth certificate without his consent while he was on a Navy tour of duty; then the mother refused to take blood tests for eight years, and he became aware of a default order against him only when the Department of Motor Vehicles refused to issue him a driver's license in October 1996. By that time, James had missed all the relevant deadlines, the court was unimpressed with his tale of woe, and he has since coughed up $14,000 in child support via liens and garnishments.

"I contact Child Support Services, and their whole thing is, 'Take us to court. You don't like what we're doing, take us to court,'" he says. "Whether or not you're the biological father doesn't matter -- if someone's got your name, and you've...failed to participate in the court date, then you have an obligation to pay child support, period."

Needless to say, taking DCSS to court is expensive (James says he's already run up legal bills of $4,000), and success isn't likely. To add insult to injury, even if you win, you won't get any of your money back.

State bureaucrats say their hearts bleed, but rules are rules. "We are obligated by law to enforce the order," says California DCSS's Gerhenzon. "We have no ability not only to stop enforcement of our own, but not to proceed with doing everything we can to get child support in this case, because we have to enforce the legally established order. The recourse is to get that order set aside, or overturned."

When judicial systems enthusiastically enforce rulings they know to be unjust, it's a surefire formula for creating activists. After writing scores of letters to politicians and conducting endless Internet searches, James and his girlfriend, Raegan Phillips, hooked up with a national group called U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, founded by a Georgia engineer named Carnell Smith. Smith paid more than $40,000 in support over 11 years to an ex-girlfriend's child he assumed to be his, until she requested more money in 1999. He then took a DNA test and discovered he wasn't the father, but the court ordered him to pay $120,000 anyway. Enraged, he launched Citizens Against Paternity Fraud and began lobbying the Georgia legislature to change laws that limited the admissibility of DNA tests. In May 2002, the effort passed, so now at least some default dads in Dixie -- those who have never adopted their children or officially acknowledged paternity -- can overturn support orders using DNA evidence, regardless of how much time has elapsed. In March of last year, under the new law, Smith's personal support order was finally overturned.

Similar laws have passed in Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Arkansas, and Alabama; others are working their way through statehouses in Texas, New Jersey, California, Florida, Michigan, Vermont, and elsewhere. Meanwhile, courts across the country are trying to redraw the legal lines of paternity now that genetic testing and welfare reform are colliding with 500 years of common law tradition, which has presumed that all children born in a marriage are the husband's responsibility, whether or not he is the biological father. In May 2003, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that men who have admitted paternity, even if the mother lied to them, are not allowed to introduce DNA evidence to challenge support orders. Carnell Smith has been trying to push the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, so far without success.

Although paternity fraud activists are beginning to gain traction, they face formidable obstacles. The Welfare Reform Act is largely a popular success. More two-parent families are staying together, more single mothers are entering the work force, and child support collections have doubled. By just about any measure, these trends are in the best interests of the affected children. In Massachusetts 18 years ago, for example, women had a miserable rate of success (around 10 percent) in suing for paternity, according to Marilyn Ray Smith, the state's chief child support enforcer, and genetic tests were inadmissible except to disprove paternity. For single mothers and their children, the legal climate obviously has changed much for the better.

Which helps explain why so many feminist groups and politicians have dug in their heels to block paternity reform bills. Considered in zero sum terms, any change that prevents some unjustly named fathers from supporting kids they didn't sire reduces the amount of money children and single mothers receive while increasing states' welfare payouts. Child support advocates also worry, with some reason, that narrow-sounding legislation aimed at preventing obvious injustices may become a Trojan horse for men who change their minds about the responsibilities of fatherhood. But that's rarely how the issue is presented. Women's groups usually argue that fatherhood cannot be measured by DNA alone -- a disingenuous stance, considering the thousands of men who pay for kids they've never lived with.

"What makes a father?" California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) said in an August 2002 interview with the Los Angeles Times, explaining why she was voting against Rod Wright's latest reform bill. "This bill says the donation of genetic material makes a father. I don't agree."

Kuehl, a former family law attorney who cosponsored a law that reworked California's child support system in 1999, has been the single biggest opponent of paternity-related reform bills in the state, to the point where activists like James and Phillips refer to her as "Sheila Cruel" and are planning demonstrations outside her office. Kuehl refused repeated requests to comment for this article. "She says it's not her issue," a spokeswoman told me. "She's not interested to talk about it."

Wright, who considers Kuehl a friend, says he tried several times to sway her with individual stories of innocent victims who'd been trampled by the current system. "Sheila said to me one day in a hearing room: 'You know, I understand that, through the convergence of science and thousand-year-old common law, we have to work toward a kind of balance. And I side with the kids; I don't really care about this guy.'" Wright chalks it up to the prevailing poli-tical winds. "If this was a case where women could be charged similarly," he says, "Sheila would be all over this like a cheap suit. It's really a case where it becomes a guy vs. a child. So it's like, 'Well, screw the guy.'"

Paternity activists argue that the best interests of the child should include, among other things, knowing who her real biological father is, so she can have accurate medical information. And every day the wrong man is on the hook, they point out, is a day not spent finding the real father.

"They have failed her," Tony Pierce says of Contra Costa County's effort on behalf of his supposed daughter. "If they're in it to feel good about themselves and to go to heaven because they're fighting for women -- no, they're going to hell, because they have not found this woman's father, and they have tried to fuck me over....What they should have said right away is, 'Hey look, this isn't the guy; let's get the
guy.'"

Every child support official I talked to was sensitive to the criticism and eager to discuss many past and future reforms aimed at reducing the number of default judgments, humanizing the system, and even (in the words of Contra Costa County's Kelly) eliminating the word deadbeat from their vocabulary. "This is a tough area," California DCSS's Gerhenzon says. "When you have bad results in these situations, they are tough on everyone involved in the process: the parents, the legal parents, the child, the system. It is to everyone's benefit not to have these cases come up."

But as long as state and federal laws remain as they are -- with low evidentiary thresholds for issuing paternity complaints, no proof of service required, the presumption of guilt in default cases, a series of short legal deadlines beyond which paternity becomes extremely difficult to challenge, and financial incentive for the government to keep naming dads and extracting money -- these cases will continue to come up. "I can see how so many men could be totally screwed right now," Pierce says. "You know, I was educated, I had a good job, I'd never been involved with the cops before, I had nothing to fear, nothing to run from. But still, I got tied into it....I can see where this stuff could create many victims."

Victims like Taron James, who lost at least two jobs while putting his life on hold for eight years so he could fight a judgment that should have never been made. "I'm a veteran -- I fought for and defended my country," James says, sitting in a Torrance, California, park down the street from his great aunt's crowded house, where he lives with his girlfriend and splits his time looking for work and driving to Sacramento to lobby legislators. "To be treated like this is ridiculous....Right now, I'm fully disgusted with California and the United States for allowing this to go on after I put my hind end on the line."

Note: The print edition of this article incorrectly stated Raegan Phillips' name and one detail about Taron James.



Matt Welch is a Reason associate editor.



#50
The pictures of all the people lining the funeral route is unbelievable!

http://members.accessus.net/~tmcdonld/lighthse/Texas.htm
____________________________________________________________

This was posted on the same thread on FR where I got this link:

To: B-Chan; Angelwood; jla; StrictTime; Bobibutu; TheSpottedOwl; familyop; American Soldier; ...
After I read this thread I found this in my e-mail from a WWII Veteran friend of mine.


The letter was written by Senior Investigator Jack Graham of the New York State Police to fellow members of the NY State Police and to the Syracuse Police who, on April 17, 2003, participated in a hastily planned ceremonial escort for a soldier killed in Iraq.
These are the kinds of stories that make us proud to be an American.

On Thursday, April 17, 2003 you participated in an escort detail for GREGORY P. HUXLEY JR who was killed in action in Iraq on April 6, 2003. On behalf of the entire Huxley family and from me, personally, I want to say "Thank you very much." Your professionalism, dedication and sincerity meant so much to the Huxley family, that words cannot describe their feelings
at this time.

What most did not know was that the US Army had promised the family members that they would be taken to Dover, Delaware to be present when their son arrived from Iraq and there would be a full military ceremony in Dover for GREGORY. Unfortunately, there was a communication problem and they were not present during that ceremony.

Then they were informed that the body of their son was being flown to Syracuse and that the funeral director could pick up the "fallen soldier" at the cargo area of the airport and that somebody would help them
remove the casket from the cardboard shipping container for transport to Boonville, NY.

The funeral director felt that unacceptable for a nineteen year old young man that gave his life for this country and for the freedom of so many others. As a family friend he contacted me to see if anything could be done. We now had six hours before GREGORY arrived in Syracuse.

Phone calls were made to SP North Syracuse and SGT Nick Harmatiuk took over from there. What you participated in and observed the rest of that day was truly an outstanding display of what this agency can do in very short time. What happened was just visually and emotionally overwhelming.

The procession left SP North Syracuse led by eight Syracuse PD motorcycles, followed by the hearse, four cars with family members and followed by ten State Police and Syracuse PD cars. How ironic it was that when the procession was traveling parallel to the runway, the plane carrying GREGORY landed next to it. We were able to enter the plane's cargo area and remove the shipping crate from the casket and drape the American flag over the casket. When the casket traveled down the conveyor belt, fifteen New
York State Troopers and the same amount of Syracuse Policemen lined the path to the awaiting hearse - all at attention. A hand salute was executed as six State Troopers proudly bore the flag draped coffin to the hearse.
After a short prayer, the family was given some time to welcome their son home.

The entire airport was so quiet. I looked up at the concourse windows and saw a hundred or more people. They were all standing, watching, with their hands over their hearts, saluting a young man that they did not know. Somehow they learned that a fallen soldier had come home and they wanted to honor his sacrifice.

The casket was then placed in the hearse and the procession left the airport in the same fashion as we arrived, only this time with a young hero
that our hearts will never forget. The motorcade was escorted to the thruway entrance by the Syracuse Police
Department's motorcycles. All traffic was stopped for the procession and we headed east towards Boonville. After getting off the thruway, we found that every intersection that the procession encountered was controlled by State Troopers, allowing us a safe, unimpeded passage. At each
intersection, the State Trooper stood at attention, saluting the fallen soldier and his family, giving him and his family the respect that they deserved. How emotional that was to see and now to reflect on.

When entering the Village of Boonville, the main street was decorated with an infinite number of American Flags and yellow ribbons. As we approached the center of town, all of the church bells began to peal at once recognizing and saluting Gregory's arrival. Hundreds of people holding American flags lined the street, some with their hand over their heart and some weeping for GREGORY for what he sacrificed, for us and his country. As we drove by the village park, the National Anthem was being played, for
GREGORY, and I think, for all of us. At the funeral home, eight veterans lifted the casket out of the hearse and into the home with the family.
GREGORY had returned home.
GREGORY'S family said to me later that the images I have just described will always be etched in their hearts, forever. But the one memory that will always be there first was of the State Troopers at the airport, standing at attention, saluting, with tears running down their cheeks for their son, a fallen soldier. A hero those Troopers never personally knew.

Our jobs take many different avenues in life. We hope that during our day or shift that we have made a difference, a positive contribution. On this occasion you did just that. An entire family knows that you cared to do your very best to honor their son. Their words and expressions told me just that. We made a difference yesterday, and we did it well.
The rewards we receive for details like this one do not come from anywhere but from the heart. Take pride in what you accomplished, because it was distinct and without equal in this Trooper's eye. I have had so many good things happen since I have been a State Trooper, but in those twenty fours years, I have never been more proud the New York State Police as I was yesterday - A fallen soldier, a hero, a son, a brother has finally come home, in grand deserving style, thanks to all of you.

Jack Graham
Senior Investigator
New York State Police

23 posted on 01/07/2004 6:54:25 AM PST by The Mayor (Those who love and serve God on earth will feel at home in heaven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
____________________________________________________________

Just damn.  I hate when things make me cry...

#51
I'm going to post the link so you all can see the happy couple :-)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053400/posts


"It's great," said Cecil on being a dual military couple. "My advice is to trust in God, and everything else will fall in place."





#52
Synthetic sperm, if you will. Every rabid gender-feminist's dream, right? No need for a man, right? Wrong.

My guess is that this won't be the "Final Solution" to making men optional, because there's no one to go after for child support. It's a fascinating technical achievement, to be sure, but in the end, they still need someone to foot the bills. :)

Lots of feminazi-tyoes would love to have a baby without having anything to do with those icky men, but damn few want to step up to the plate and foot the bill and pay for it themselves. After all, that's what men are for.  


Scientists Create Sperm From Stem Cells

Wed Dec 10, 1:03 PM ET
By RICK CALLAHAN, Associated Press Writer

Scientists say they have turned mouse embryonic stem cells into primitive sperm cells — and then used the sperm cells to fertilize eggs. The scientific team's work could offer insights into male infertility and boost human stem cell research.

The sperm cells were not fully developed sperm, but rather their tail-less precursors. When they were injected into eggs, the eggs developed into embryos. Scientists are now studying whether such embryos can develop into live-born mice.

The team was led by Dr. George Q. Daley of Harvard Medical School. Its findings were published online Wednesday by the journal Nature.

Embryonic stem cells can develop into virtually any kind of cell of the body, and scientists hope to use them someday to create replacement parts to treat illnesses such as Parkinson's disease and diabetes. The new work also involved embryonic germ cells, which appear in early embryos and mature into either sperm or egg cells.

Recently, other scientists reported that they had turned mouse stem cells into egg cells. Hans R. Schoeler of the University of Pennsylvania, who led the team that created those mouse egg cells, said the new work is a "very careful and beautiful study" that complements his team's findings.

While Japanese researchers announced in September that they had also created sperm from stem cells, Schoeler said their work was conducted largely inside living mice, something he called cumbersome and labor-intensive.

"But here we have the example where everything has been done in the dish and you can really study it in this way because it's right in front of you," Schoeler said.

Dr. John Gearhart, a Johns Hopkins University stem cell researcher, said that the new research is intriguing but that it is not clear whether the fertilized mouse eggs would have developed into normal embryos.

Daley said the laboratory methods his team developed as part of the research will allow scientists to study closely the development of germ cells.

"Germ cells are in some sense the immortal cells of our species. They're really endowed and given the responsibility for perpetuating the species," Daley said.
#53
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1031388/posts

Kind of lame, but I was getting rather pissed off trying to do what the bot required.


Lots of folks here might be able to help on a person to person basis.

This is for the folks who privately emailed me.  Post quick, so they know you're serious!

Dammit Angus, go eat, and let me type!
#54


http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1069831656242380.xml


And baby makes 10 for single mother

Her holiday wish is for a better life


Wednesday November 26, 2003


By Stacy Day
Contributing writer

Thanksgiving may find Edrina, 32, giving birth to a new baby, a daughter, the doctors say, who is due on the holiday. The new baby will add to Edrina's already very busy household when she comes home to join nine brothers and sisters.

Edrina is a single mother who is grateful to her own mother for lending a hand. "My mom really helps me out a lot," she says. "She tries hard to help me."

She is especially grateful for her mother's help staying with the younger children while she takes her son Tevin, 3, to doctor appointments and for the occupational and physical therapy he receives for his developmental delays.

Edrina wishes she could work, but she stays home with the younger children who are not yet in school. She worries about what the new year will bring for her finances. December is the last month she is eligible to receive welfare. She receives a Social Security payment for Tevin, but that check just barely covers her rent. She is concerned about how she will pay her utilities after December. When asked what she will do, Edrina says: "Just pray."

The unknown future has dampened her enthusiasm for the holidays. "I don't even have the Thanksgiving spirit," she says.

Her children have the Christmas spirit, however, and already are making wish lists for Santa. Her mother has offered to try to buy gifts for the children, but "I don't want her to try to do everything," Edrina says.

The older boys, Carl, 16, Kerrell, 11 and Robert, 8, love video games they can play on TV. Jacquekeya, 12, has admired the new Easy Bake Oven, while the younger girls, Shamekia, 9, and Brittany, 4 (she has a twin, Brian) really like Dora Explorer. They like "anything Dora" says Edrina, but Brittany would especially like a Dora watch, like the one her older sister received on her birthday.

While she has no specific plan yet, Edrina's wish for Christmas is "that I could better my situation."

"There are 10 of us now and I stay in a one-bedroom apartment -- just picture that. I wish I could do better."

Edrina's children will each receive a present when they join thousands of other children Dec. 20 at the Superdome for the 108th annual Times-Picayune Doll and Toy Fund giveaway.

The fund will hold another giveaway Dec. 6 with the Jefferson Parish Doll and Toy Fund at the Mike Miley Playground. It also contributes to the Covington, Kenner and Mandeville police departments, St. Tammany and Westwego Toys for Tots and St. Bernard Operation Merry Christmas.

The fund relies on community contributions, which can be made in honor of a loved one or as a memorial. Contributions should be sent to The Times-Picayune Doll and Toy Fund, P.O. Box 61065, New Orleans, toLA 70161-9979. Tickets to the giveaways are distributed by local churches and community centers.
____________________________________________________________

I have a better idea....let's chip in and get her sterilized!!!!

Can you believe this woman is actually trolling for donations because of her stupidity?